Rising sea levels a 'sleeping giant'

Originally posted by mjp2 ↑

Rob79: sure, all that is sensible. The water will go to those low points and there are interesting economic and engineering challenges ahead. The right approach will vary from place to place.

However the broad economic studies tell us that mitigation, overall, is far less expensive than adaption, though both are now required.

This is a better discussion than the usual here, which is with people in total denial that anything is happening.

That is an interesting report:

"The PwC Low Carbon Economy Index (LCEI) calculates the
rate of decarbonisation of the global economy that is
needed to limit warming to 2°C. We base our analysis on
the carbon budget estimated by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 2°C.
Emissions per unit of GDP fell in 2013 by 1.2%, marginally
better than the average decrease of 0.9% since 2000. But
with such limited progress in decoupling emissions growth
from GDP growth, the gap between what we are doing and
what we need to do has again grown, for the sixth year
running. The average annual rate of decarbonisation
required for the rest of this century for us to stay within the
two degree budget now stands at 6.2%. This is double the
decarbonisation rate achieved in the UK during the rapid
shift to gas-fired electricity generation in the nineties.
While negotiations focus on policies to limit warming to
2°C, based on the decarbonisation rates of the last six years,
we are headed for 4°C of warming in global average
temperature by the end of the century, with severe
consequences identified by the IPCC for ecosystems,
livelihoods and economies. "

Expand

MJP2, thks for your response. I believe many of those that are labelled "deniers" to not dispute it is in all our interests to look after our environment and do everything possible to reduce pollution, improve energy efficiency and transition to improved energy sources as they become available. They are more than likely thinking people and do not accept "givens" so insulting then only reinforces the desire to further challenge these "givens" and question what is and has been forced on them in a emotive and often inconsistent manner.

That PWC report would suggest that Australia is and has taken steps to reduce our CO2 emissions and we have also embraced Wind and Solar as alternative sources of energy. I have seen first hand that environmental issues are front and centre in some heavy industries who participate in government initiatives and these industry initiatives have probably done as much to improve our environment than building wind farms in recent years. We do not have a nuclear industry and this in respect to CO2 puts us at a disadvantage compared to many countries we are benchmarked with. That is a choice we have all made, we chose CO2 over nuclear and many would argue that was a good decision.

I am encouraged by the scientific discussion, we need our Scientists to continue to identify challenges and opportunities and present their work. Modern times and internet access ensures we can all quickly find information to support our views, we don't really even have to be that clever but meanwhile our millions of "little polluters" will continue to consume and waste valuable resources and protest that someone else needs to act whilst the industries that produce those goods will continue to reduce their energy input costs.

The economics of the discussion will change and evolve with the science and new technologies, each country will have its own challenges and opportunities and we can all learn from the mistakes made in the past in discussing and presenting our views.

I mean no offence to you or anyone, these issues should be important to all of us and good on you for presenting you views.
cheers